Sunday, February 13, 2005

This movie should be viewed by Tony, Ron & George. Take along HoWARd and leave him in his beloved 1950's.

Vera Drake is a portrait of a selfless woman who is totally dedicated to her loving working class family. Vera has a secret side, though. Unbeknownst to family and friends, she visits women and helps them to induce miscarriages for their unwanted pregnancies, a practice that is illegal in 1950's England. While Vera believes she is simply helping women in need of assistance, the dichotomy of her idyllic home life and her illegal activities make for a fascinating study.

Firstly, what facts should she check? I didn't notice any statistics or other factual information presented in the post. If there were facts, was there something stopping you debuking them with evidence?

Secondly, I think you missed Suki's point. I believe Howard, even though he is a reactionary, stuck in the 19050s and wishing he was Robert Menzies, probably isn't that much of an extremist. Though I don't doubt he does oppose abortion in many respects. Many of his recent comments in the media lean that direction. But Alan Cadman, Tony Abbot, John Anderson, and the rest of the extremist pro-life nutjobs in the Liberal Party, are radically opposed to abortion. And Howard shows little sign of standing in their way as they dance a merry path right back to the 1950s world depicted in Vera Drake. Hence Suki's point.

Grant, Is your comment that I am of "no PERSONAL consequence" to HoWARd coming from your view of women (and our proximity) or because I am not likely to vote for him and be one of his battlers. As it happens, I am not likely to vote for him, but I am of consequence as I pay taxes and indoctrinate future voters!

HoWARd gets my attention because he lies. People die because of his lies.He also gets my attention for not being progressive toward women's reproductive rights. He's had eight years to expand a pro-choice agenda.

I pffft and feh in his general direction in support of my Uterus and it's right to be attached to me. Unlike him, I (or any woman I know) may be faced with an unplanned pregnancy and I demand that my healthcare involves more choice than my relatives had in the 1950's.

Right now, women are experiencing unneccesary anxiety as their right to bodily integrity is debated.

you might have noticed that it is Suki who claims that Howard is a throwback to the 50s not me - and yet she backs this claim up with no facts whatsoever.

I'd be happy if you did put up some facts

And Suki stop playing the gender card - it is just so lame and so typical of radicals who have no substantive argument. Of course you matter to him POLITICALLY that was the distinction.

The ususal banalities dominate your response - I take it that you would rather all debate on this issue be shut down - what does that say about women's rights to express points of view different to yours.

By the way Suki, I support a woman's right to an abortion AND I'm an atheist so we probably have a few things in common.

If you were to actually check your facts you would see that the debate which you object to so much is actually about partial birth abortions which allow doctors to penetrate the skull of a baby partially delivered and suck out the brain with a vaccuum cleaner type device - I take it you're all for this.

Over in the US radical feminist Senators like Barbara Boxer are happy for this type of procedure to take place as long as there is at least one of the baby's feet still not delivered.

And weezil, I don't see any reference or comaprison of the content of my blog to Suki's - Suki's opinions actually inspired me to start my own Blog so I have something to thank her for.

i love how grant "checks his facts" so hard that he seems to have grasped at someone else's facts entirely...

the whole "partial-birth abortion" furphy debate is a US debate, not an Australian debate, and if john howard has said a word about "partial-birth" then funnily enough, it doesn't appear in any of the relevant news stories:

grRANT, You say you support abortion. Good go have one!Women own this one grRANT. We are not marching in the street demanding less reproductive rights. We (and other primary carers) are saying that childcare should be easier to access and more affordable. We are saying that workpractices need to be more family friendly.It's the men, grRANT, POWERFUL men who are driving this agenda and HoWARd is complicit because these views of who owns a woman (including her reproductive capacity) is from the 1950's. The Feminist revolution has been and women will not go back. No matter how hard HoWARd and you try.

It will always come down to My Uterus! That then is a healthcare issue.

the original womens movement wanted to be treated like equals amongst men based on intelligence not set apart from them based on their genitalia - you might do well to embrace that spirit - or is it too retrograde for you?

Hey Suki, when does this "Troll-B-Gon" thing start kicking in? Apparently it cannot distinguish between straw men and bullshit. Oh well, it's a young technology...

Dear grRRRANT, Barbara Boxer is hardly a radical feminist. Go chat up Andrea Dworkin- and be man enough to stand within arm's length of her when you do. If you live to tell the tale, I bet your gauge of radical feminism will shift a bit.

GENDER CARD?! What on earth do you think draws people to segregate the validity of particular opinions on such an arbitrary basis? Titties? Vaginas? What? Wouldn't you think that owner/operators of such equipment should have the sole right to set the rules for them?

PBA is a 100% furphy (and it IS a USA issue- only). It is being used as a foot in the door for US xtians to jam their religious agenda right up every cervix they can find. Sure, the medical decriptions of an abortion are harrowing, but I got the News O' The Day fer ya; ALL surgical procedures are horrific. Go to my blog and check THIS out (with surgical theatre pix in living, bloody colour). I hesitate to launch into descriptions of bowel cancer surgeries- let alone a vasectomy...

The Australian abortion 'debate' is a bigger furphy yet. It's not a debate at all. It is some old men attempting to worm Vatican doctrine into public law via Parliamentary manoevres and press releases. The vast majority of Australian women are satisfied with the laws as they stand. As far as women are concerned, PellAbbott and Boz can go have their circle jerk in a very dark closet.

Men do not have uteri. Men do not own the women who DO have them. Men, and the churches they run, are going to have to get used to the idea that they no longer will be dictating to women when and when not to birth.

This is how it works. Women want reproductive Choice.Men are only involved in a supportive role- Progenitor, partner, Gynaecologist, post-abortion support person, father, brother, son…

Are you getting this?There is no legitimate place for Tony Abbott, George Pell, Ron Boswell or HoWARd in this healthcare choice. Do you want them to sit in on whether women should have an IUCD or use oral contraception? Be at every Chemist every Monday as they purchase the morning after pill?

I can breed or not breed. Abort or not abort. So can most women. That is one of the reasons that post-feminist times are such great fucking fun. We can control our bodies, including the physiological consequences of hello sperm–hello egg. Let's leave it at that!

No really - Grant has a point. I think you are being very unfair and narrow minded in your view that only women have uteruses (I?) and that the abortion dabate is just about women. What about the men who have... oh wait...

But seriously we should totally listen to Grant because he supports abortion except for the ones that are, like, wrong.

There are feminist perspectives on abortion which lie outside the parameters you refer to.

Consider these, as an example.

Abortion allows real social restructure - such as the implementation of readily adequate maternity leave, accessible child care and greater social support for mothers - to remain unaddressed or inadequate. You will recognise that these are common complaints for women with children, and women who want children. These are also common reasons behind many women’s decisions to terminate their pregnancy.

Some women believe that it is inconsistent for women to demand rights for ourselves, but to deny them to our unborn.

Some women believe that if it is unacceptable for men to treat a woman's body as his property, it is unacceptable for a woman to treat the body of her unborn child as her own property.

Some women believe that men should contribute to the debate on abortion. I do. Abortion affects all of us. However, I think you'd be surprised to find that many men support abortion - because it allows him to buy his way out of an 'inconvenient' pregnancy, and restore the woman to her manageable pre-pregnant state. It is relevant to mention that the Playboy Federation has been in the position of making the highest single financial contribution to the abortion rights lobby in the US. Why?

Our society is really quite hostile to women who are pregnant, and women who have had children.

The recent Age opinion piece referred to by Grant pointed out that while pro-choice advocates went to great lengths to emphasise the deep emotional burden of making the abortion decision, they generally dismissed any suggestion of abortion having any long-term impact on a woman's mental health. I pffft at that!

And don't overlook the reality of abortion as just another consumer service. It's a very cold cash-based solution to the real problems encountered by women in our society. Sorry, but it's not just about us and our uteri.

True feminism should not stand for abortion as an acceptable solution to the myriad of circumstances preventing women from proceeding with their pregnancies.

anonymous, I do not dispute the need for structural change. This government has had eight years to impress us. This same government is now causing unnecessary anxiousness for women and their reproductive rights.

The need for our society to welcome its newborns and their caregivers is a given. So is the need to respect choice not to have children.

Your either/or would do better to be a both/and.

Expand access to safe and free abortion. Issue every sexually active woman with Levonorgestrel.At each pap smear she can replenish her supply or not.

"Abortion allows real social restructure - such as the implementation of readily adequate maternity leave, accessible child care and greater social support for mothers - to remain unaddressed or inadequate."This is a strawman argument. You say that women's free reproductive choice precludes their getting proper maternity leave and childcare. Of course, this is crap.

"Some women believe...

Some women believe...

Some women believe ..."These are apparently the same 'some women' to whom Fox "News" frequently refers. Now you're arguing about straw-women, not just strawmen. Your 'some women' don't exist.

"The recent Age opinion piece referred to by Grant..."...was just that- an opinion piece. There were NO facts in it!

"...it's not just about us and our uteri."Marcel, you don't have a uterus, so why don't you have a nice cup of shut the fuck up?

"True feminism should not stand for abortion as an acceptable solution to the myriad of circumstances preventing women from proceeding with their pregnancies."Marcel, will you cut with the straw man shit? If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she'll have a termination. If she wants to raise a child, she'll raise a child.

And stop trying to pretend to be a woman. Your writing style gave you away even before your IP address did!

*sigh*

Marcel, you are a great example of why Peter Singer thinks retroactive abortion is a good idea.

Anonymous and gallstonegirl. You have been removed by me from my blog because you practice literary violence.

Moreover, neither of you exist to be debated and read over time and across issues and I'm not supplying your vitriol with oxygen. Advice gallstonegirl...telling someone to fuck off is not a good way to invite dialogue. All it shows is that you can't manage your rage.

This is how my feminism works!

Feel free to create your own blogs so that I can assiduously avoid them, and you.

hey anonymous twit, why don't you come back and leave another 3 page rant- which Suki will delete with one mouseclick?

Piss off you abusive losers- and stop masquerading as women. Suki logs IPs and in cooperation with other bloggers who are sick of purely and pointlessly argumentative trolls, can tell who you really are. If you have something to say, your comments may merit response. If not, they go *poof*.